National security at risk in repeal of 'don't ask'

I care that some friends who are gay or defend gays, as I have at career risk many times, have an opposite view of Congress and President Barack Obama’s repeal of the ”don’t ask, don’t tell” policy against homosexuals serving openly in the military. It is a commendable affirmation of American fairness. But I care more about the effect on the welfare of U.S. combat troops and for America’s national security.

“National security” is a big term, and can be read as overexpansive. Yet that is what is at stake in any erosion of the combat effectiveness of America’s armed forces. What the accolades over repealing the policy ignore is the repudiation of the warriors who now serve on the front lines, whose complete trust and reliance upon the soldier or Marine next to him determines his survival. The majority of combat troops see the negative impacts of repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell,” as is clear in the Pentagon report, and some will pay with their careers or lives.

Supporters of the change list Western nations with openly gay military service. But almost all are in noncombat positions, their militaries are weak and dependent upon U.S. forces, and none bear the responsibility for the magnitude of the tasks the U.S. does.

Israel’s military is an exception, but that ignores the different realities there, which even the Pentagon report recognizes. In a tiny country, everyone is mobilized, but most troops live at home. Still, gays are usually in support billets, and there is harassment.

The Pentagon summary says 70 percent of the military sees a positive or neutral effect. That skews the actual poll result: 20 percent saw no impact and 19 percent a positive impact, while 30 percent saw a negative impact and 32 percent a mix of positive and negative.

Here is what press coverage of this issue, and the Pentagon itself, minimized: The majority of Marine and Army combat troops saw negative impacts, as did the Army, Marine and Air Force service chiefs, with tepid approval from the Navy and Coast Guard chiefs. Nothing in the Pentagon report says permitting openly homosexual service will improve military effectiveness, which should be the key issue. Our military exists to fight and win wars, a mission that must take priority over all others. The major veterans organizations and the largest number of retired generals and admirals ever to publicly speak out on a military issue declared their strong opposition to repealing the policy, at least now when our nation’s soldiers and Marines are fighting two wars.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullens said in his congressional testimony that combat troops who cannot accept or adjust to repeal have an option – leave the military. To the nation’s great detriment, many combat soldiers and Marines may or be forced to do exactly that.

The Pentagon’s implementation plan focuses on vignettes to govern behavior. Yet in almost every case, there is no real answer to how to deal with challenges to military order or living conditions. Instead, the vignettes repeatedly just rely on command judiciousness, which will mostly mean accommodation or acquiescence. There can be little doubt that behavior boundaries will be constantly disputed, will take up much time and resources, and will distract from the focus on military effectiveness. The limit on the military’s costs and troubles of accommodating gay marriage, the federal Defense of Marriage Act recognizing only heterosexual marriage, is under judicial challenge. So expect further turmoil in the ranks and defense budgets.

The actual repercussions may well be less than worst-case scenarios.

No one expects gay enlistments or service in combat units to surge or increase significantly. However, the efforts to accommodate that relatively tiny number will still consume much effort and resources, and establish conditions that significantly affect the majority of combat troops. Similarly, no one expects newfound support from those opposed to our military’s missions or who ignore our troops’ safety. Meanwhile, a much larger number of those who might enlist will not, or will not re-enlist or will be ushered out of the military.

Talk to combat troops and veterans, as I frequently do, and the resentment quickly comes out at the excesses of “political correctness” unrealistically imposed on them, especially when it puts their lives at increased risk.

I have two young sons and, like many others, have serious doubts whether they should choose to follow me into military service.

Kesler, a resident of Encinitas, served in the Marine Corps in Vietnam. He writes frequently on security and related issues in blogs and newspaper columns.